WWW Site for John Lawrence Bencze, Associate Professor, Science Education, OISE/University of Toronto

Graduate Studies
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
University of Toronto

Curriculum Making in Science:
Some Considerations in the
History, Philosophy & Sociology of Science

This is the course website for CTL 1212, which is a half-course in graduate studies at OISE-UT dealing with history, philosophy and sociology of science (and, to a degree, technology/engineering). Through the links at right, you can access a course outline and relevant educational resources. If you have any comments, questions, suggestions, etc., please don't hesitate to pass them along to me.

Course Description.
Course Resources.

Course Description [draft]

This course is intended to help students to develop conceptions about ‘the nature of science’ (and technology) (NoS/T) as it may relate to school science. This involves studies from fields of history, philosophy and sociology of science (HPSS/T).
    There is ample justification for encouraging and enabling students to develop realistic conceptions about science. Given that the functioning of many societies is more or less dependent on products of science and technology, it seems logical to assume, for example, that citizens should have good answers to questions like: ‘Who chooses knowledge/products to develop?,’ ‘What is more influential in decision-making in the sciences; data or theories?’ and ‘In what ways do human ‘frailties’ limit success of work in the sciences?’ Also, research suggests that teachers’ approaches to teaching science depends — to some extent, depending on other variables — on their beliefs about science.
     Study of the nature of science, although apparently well-justified, is contentious. Firstly, the subject itself is contentious. Many researchers appear to support the claim that ‘there is no one nature of science.’ Indeed, it seems that there are as many views about science as there are analysts
. At the very least, we might say that there are different ‘camps’ — groups of people supporting alternative claims about science, depending on their more general principles.
Secondly, although there is a great body of claims about science, the degree to which governments, educators and others acknowledge and prioritize HPSS education significantly varies. In some places, it is given high priority, while in others it is scarcely or never mentioned. The government of Ontario, for example, places minimal emphasis on HPSS education (or ‘nature of science’ education), despite existence of many compelling, research-informed, reasons for its inclusion in education. Reasons for neglecting this aspect of education vary, but there do appear to be issues relating to distribution of power that influence its presence.

Accordingly, a study of power relations regarding science and science education is included in this course. Typical assignments from this course are given at right.
Formative Assignments
Throughout the course, students are expected to read lectures notes, assigned and unassigned readings, and complete various related assignments. Summaries of this work are to be posted to a course conference (e.g., Discussions). More specific descriptions of these assignments are provided during classes. In making online contributions, students should develop and emphasize: i) clarity and logic of writing, ii) use of ideas, perspectives, etc. from refereed sources, iii) use of ideas, perspectives, etc. from experience (including those of peers, including those provided on the course forum), iv) posing of counter-arguments to their claims, and v) length (specified for each assignment). [Value = 25%].

Summative Assignments
NoS(T) Position Statement   Each student is to produce and submit an argumentative defence of her/his position(s) about relatively narrow aspects of the nature of science &/or technology dealing with topics/readings addressed in this course. This position statement will be evaluated in terms of:  i) Clarity & Logic of Writing, including using APA Style[2] (10/50); ii) Length [~ 2,000 words; with references ~ 10% of total] (10/50); and, iii) Argumentation[1] (e.g., claims, counter-claims, evidence & relevant refereed literature mainly drawn from this course (30/50).

[1] Toulmin, S. (1958). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; e.g., use of claims, counter-claims, evidence & references.

[2] A good source for APA Style is: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/

NoS(T) Education Statement:  Each student is to produce and submit an argumentative defence of a relatively narrow set of claims about science and/or technology and instructional strategies that should help students (in a grade) to develop more ‘realistic’ NoS/T conceptions pertaining to topics/readings addressed in the course.  The final submission will be evaluated in terms of:  i) Clarity & Logic of Writing, in APA Style] (10/50); ii) Length [~ 5,000 words; with references ~ 10% of total] (10/50); and, iii) Argumentation (e.g., claims, counter-claims, evidence & relevant refereed literature, largely drawn from this course (30/50).

(Back to Top)

Course Resources
To help students to achieve the goals of this course, several resources are provided.
Although there is no formal course text, a few books will be recommended. In addition, several readings will be provided from various refereed journal articles, book chapters, etc., many of which are given here. Related to that, students should make great use of the OISE/UT Library, including its provision of full-text journal articles. Students also are strongly urged to use ideas, perspectives, practices, etc. provided through my website. Although the resources on my site is largely oriented towards science education, there may be many ideas, resources, etc. that apply to other subjects - including mathematics & technology education. These are outlined briefly, as well as linked, at right. This course is conducted online at a PeppeR site (login required).
Educational Resources
The following sets of web pages could be very helpful for students in this course:

Some References
All of the refereed sources below are not intended to be read by students in the course, but are provided in case some choose to use some of them for particular assignments.

Journal Articles
  • Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Lederman, N.G. (2000). Improving science teachers’ conceptions of nature of science: A critical review of the literature. International Journal of Science Education, 22(7), 665-701.
  • Adey, P., & Shayer, M. (1990). Accelerating the development of formal thinking in middle and high school students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(3), 267-285.
  • Aikenhead, G.S. & Jegede, O.J. (1999). Cross-cultural science education: A cognitive explanation of a cultural phenomenon. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(3), 269-287.
  • Allchin, D. (2004). Should the sociology of science be rated X? Science Education, 88(6), 934–946.
  • Alters, B. (1997). Whose nature of science? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34(1), 39-55.
  • Ausubel, D.P. (1964). Some psychological and educational limitations of learning by discovery. The Arithmetic Teacher, 11, 290-302.
  • Barab, S.A., & Hay, K. E. (2001). Doing science at the elbows of experts: Issues related to the science apprenticeship camp. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(1), 70-102.
  • Bartholomew, H., Osborne, J., & Ratcliffe, M. (2004). Teaching Students ‘‘Ideas-About-Science”: Five dimensions of effective practice. Science Education, 88(5), 655-682.
  • Bauer, J., Petkova, K., & Boyadjieva, P. (2000). Public knowledge of and attitudes to science: Alternative measures that may end the ‘science war.’ Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 30-51.
  • Bencze, J.L. (1996). Correlational studies in school science: Breaking the science-experiment-certainty connection. School Science Review, 78(282), 95-101.
  • Bencze, J.L. (2000). Procedural apprenticeship in school science: Constructivist enabling of connoisseurship. Science Education, 84(6),727-739.
  • Bencze, J.L. (2001). Subverting corporatism in school science. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(3), 349-355.
  • Bencze, J.L. (2001). 'Technoscience' education: Empowering citizens against the tyranny of school science. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11(3), 273-298.
  • Bencze, J.L. (2008). Private profit, science and science education: Critical problems and possibilities for action. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics & Technology Education, 8(4), 297-312.
  • Bencze, J.L. (2010). Exposing and deposing hyper-economized school science. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5(2), 293-303.
  • Bencze, L., DiGiuseppe, M., Hodson, D., Pedretti, E., Serebrin, L., & Decoito, I. (2003). Paradigmic road blocks in elementary school science ‘reform’: Reconsidering nature-of-science teaching within a Rational-Realist milieu. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 16(5), 285-308.
  • Bencze, L., & Elshof, L. (2004). Science teachers as metascientists: An inductive-deductive dialectic immersion in northern alpine field ecology. International Journal of Science Education, 26(12), 1507-1526.
  • Bencze, L., Bowen, M., & Alsop, S. (2006). Teachers’ tendencies to promote student-led science projects: Associations with their views about science. Science Education, 90(3), 400-419.
  • Brotherton, P.N., & Preece, P.F.W. (1996). Teaching science process skills. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 65-74.
  • Cajas. F. (2001). The science/technology interaction: Implications for science literacy. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 715-729.
  • Cawthron, E.R., & Rowell, J.A. (1978). Epistemology and science education. Studies in Science Education, 5, 31-59.
  • Chambers, D.W. (1983). Stereotypic images of the scientist: The Draw-A-Scientist Test. Science Education, 67(2), 255-265.
  • Chinn, C.A., & Malhotra, B.A. (2002). Epistemologically authentic inquiry in schools: A theoretical framework for evaluating inquiry tasks. Science Education, 86(2), 175–218.
  • Cunningham, C.M., & Helms, J.V. (1998). Sociology of science as a means to a more authentic inclusive science education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(5), 483-499.
  • Eflin, J.T., Glennan, S., & Reisch, G. (1999). The nature of science: A perspective from the philosophy of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 36(1), 107-116.
  • Fensham, P.J. (1993). Academic influence on school science curricula. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 25(1), 53-64.
  • Gardner, P.L. (1999). The representation of science-technology relationships in Canadian physics textbooks. International Journal of Science Education, 21(3), 329-347.
  • Gott, R. & Duggan, S. (1996). Practical work: Its role in the understanding of evidence in science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 791-806.
  • Gott, R., Duggan, S., & Johnson, P. (1999). What do practising applied scientists do and what are the implications for science education? Research in Science & Technological Education, 17(1), 97-107.
  • Hodson, D. (1986). The nature of scientific observation. School Science Review, 68, 17-29.
  • Hodson, D. (1988). Toward a philosophically more valid science curriculum. Science Education, 72(1), 19-40.
  • Hodson, D. (1996). Laboratory work as scientific method: Three decades of confusion and distortion. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 115-135.
  • Hodson, D. (1999). Science fiction: The continuing misrepresentation of science in the school curriculum. Curriculum Studies, 6(2), 191-216.
  • Hodson, D. (2003). Time for action: Science education for an alternative future. International Journal of Science Education, 25(6), 645–670.
  • Jenkins, E. (1996). The ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 28(2), 137-150.
  • Johnson, S.K., & Stewart, J. (1990). Using philosophy of science in curriculum development: An example from high school genetics. International Journal of Science Education, 12, 297-307.
  • Layton, D. (1988). Revaluing the T in STS. International Journal of Science Education, 10(4), 367-378.
  • Lederman, N. (1992). Students’ and teachers’ conceptions of the nature of science: A review of the research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29(4), 331-359.
  • Lederman, N.G., Abd-El-Khalick, F., Bell, R.L., & Schwartz, R. (2002). Views of nature of science questionnaire: Toward valid and meaningful assessment of learner’s conceptions of nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39(6), 497-521.
  • Lock, R. (1990). Open-ended, problem-solving investigations: What do we mean and how can we use them? School Science Review, 71(256), 63-72.
  • Loving, C.C. (1991). The Scientific Theory Profile: A philosophy of science model for science teachers. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 823-838.
  • Loving, C.C. (1997). From the summit of truth to its slippery slopes: Science education’s journey through positivist-postmodern territory.  American Educational Research Journal, 34(3), 421-452.
  • Loving, C.C. (1998). Young people's images of science. Science Education, 82(6), 706-710.
  • Machamer, P. (1998). Philosophy of science: An overview for educators. Science & Education, 7(1), 1-11.
  • Matthews, M.R. (1998). In defense of modest goals when teaching about the nature of science. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(2), 161-174.
  • McGinn, M.K., & Roth, W-M. (1999). Preparing students for competent scientific practice: Implications of recent research in science and technology studies. Educational Researcher, 28(3), 14-24.
  • Millar, R., & Driver, R. (1987). Beyond processes. Studies in Science Education, 14, 33-62.
  • Mitroff, I.I., & Mason, R.O. (1974). On evaluating the scientific contribution of the Apollo missions via information theory: A study of the scientist-scientist relationship. Management Science: Applications, 20, 1501-1513.
  • Morin, K., Rakatansky, H., Riddick, H., Morse, L., O’Bannon, J., Goldrich, M., Ray, P., Weiss, M., Sade, R., & Spillman, M. (2002). Managing conflicts of interest in the conduct of clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 287(1), 78-84.
  • Nola, R. (1990). The Strong Programme for the sociology of science, reflexivity, and relativism. Inquiry, 33, 273-296.
  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1993). Your nature of science profile: An activity for science teachers. School Science Review, 75(270), 109-112.
  • Nott, M., & Smith, R. (1995). “Talking your way out of it,” “rigging” and “conjuring”: What science teachers do when practicals go wrong. International Journal of Science Education, 17(3), 791-820.
  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1996). When the black box springs open: practical work in schools and the nature of science. International Journal of Science Education, 18(7), 807-18.
  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1997). Producing the evidence: science teachers’ initiations into practical work. Research in Science Education, 27(3), 397-403.
  • Nott, M., & Wellington, J. (1998). Eliciting, interpreting and developing teachers’ understandings of the nature of science. Science & Education, 7, 579-594.
  • Ross, J.A. (1986). Cows moo softly: Acquiring and retrieving a formal operational schema. European Journal of Science Education, 8(4), 389-397.
  • Ross, J.A. (1988). Controlling variables: A meta-analysis of training studies. Review of Educational Research, 58(4), 405-437.
  • Roth, W-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The development of science process skills in authentic contexts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 30(2), 127-152.
  • Roth, W-M., & Roychoudhury, A. (1993). The nature of scientific knowledge, knowing and learning: the perspectives of four physics students. International Journal of Science Education, 15(1), 27-44.
  • Roth, W.-M. (2001). Learning science through technological design. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(7), 768-790.
  • Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Reconsidering the ‘nature of science’ as a curriculum component. Curriculum Studies, 32(3), 403-419.
  • Schauble, L., Klopfer, L., & Raghavan, K. (1991). Students’ transition from an engineering model to a science model of experimentation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28(9), 859-882.
  • Sutton, C. (1996). Beliefs about science and beliefs about language. International Journal of Science Education, 18(1), 1-18.
  • Tobin, K., & McRobbie, C. J. (1997). Beliefs about the nature of science and the enacted science curriculum. Science & Education, 6(4), 355-371.
  • Tsai, C.-C. (2000). Relationships between student scientific epistemological beliefs and perceptions of constructivist learning environments. Educational Research, 42(2), 193-205.
  • Turner, S., & Sullenger, K. (1999). Kuhn in classroom, Lakatos in the lab: Science educators confront the nature-of-science debate. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 24(1), 5-30.
  • Waks, L.J. (2001). Donald Schön’s philosophy of design and design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 11, 37–51.
  • Wellington, J. (2001). What is science education for? Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 1(2), 23-38.
  • Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225-246.
  • Windschitl, M. (2003). Inquiry projects in science teacher education: What can investigative experiences reveal about teacher thinking and eventual classroom practice? Science Education, 87(1), 112– 143.

Book Chapters
  • Black, P., & Harrison, G. B. (1986). Technological capability. In A. Cross & B. McCormick (Eds.), Technology in schools (pp. 130-136). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Cobern, W.W., & Loving, C.C. (1998). The card exchange: Introducing the philosophy of science. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 73-82). Dortrecht: Kluwer.
  • Collins, H.M., & Shapin, S. (1989). Experiment, science teaching, and the new history and sociology of science. In M. Shortland & A. Warwick (Eds.), Teaching the history of science (pp. 67-79). Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
  • Désautels, J., Fleury, S.C., & Garrison, J. (2002). The enactment of epistemological practice as subversive social action, the provocation of power, and anti-modernism. In W.-M. Roth & J. Désautels (Eds.), Science education as/for sociopolitical action, Peter Lang, New York, pp. 237-269.
  • Fensham, P.J., & Gardner, P.L. (1994). Technology education and science education: a new relationship? In D. Layton (Ed.), Innovations in science and technology education, Volume V (pp. 159-170). Paris: UNESCO.
  • Jenkins, E. (2000). ‘Science for all’: Time for a paradigm shift? In R. Millar, J. Leach & J. Osborne (Eds.), Improving science education: the contribution of research (pp. 207-226). Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
  • Knorr-Cetina, K.D. (1995). Laboratory studies: The cultural approach to the study of science. In S. Jasonoff, G. Markle, J. Peterson & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of science and technology studies (pp. 140-166). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Loving, C.C. (1998). Nature of science activities using the Scientific Theory Profile: From the Hawking-Gould dichotomy to a philosophical checklist. In W. F. McComas (Ed.), The nature of science in science education (pp. 137-150). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
  • Matthews, M.R. (1994). History and philosophy in the classroom: The case of pendulum motion. In M. R. Matthews (Ed.), Science teaching: The role of history and philosophy of science (pp. 109-135). London: Routledge.
  • Merton, R.K. (1967). The institutional imperatives of science. In B. Barnes (Ed.), Sociology of science (pp. 62-78). Harmondsworth: New York: Penguin, 1971.
  • Merton, R.K. (1973). The normative structure of science. In R.K. Merton (Ed.), The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations (pp. 256-278). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Munby, H. (1980). Analyzing teaching for intellectual independence. In H. Munby, G. Orpwood & T. Russell (Eds.), Seeing curriculum form a new light: Essays from science education (pp. 11-33). Toronto: OISE Press.
  • Noble, D.D. (1988). Education, technology, and the military. In L.E. Beyer & M.W. Apple (Eds.), The curriculum: Problems, politics and possibilities (pp. 241-258). Albany: State University of New York Press.
  • Abercrombie, N., Hill, S., & Turner, B.S. (editors) (1994). Dictionary of sociology (3rd edition). New York: Penguin.
  • Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.
  • Barlex, D., & Carré, C. (1985). Visual communication in science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Baudrillard, J. (1998). The consumer society. London: Sage.
  • Bencze, J.L. (1995). Towards a More Authentic and Feasible Science Curriculum for Secondary Schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, The University of Toronto.
  • Biagioli, M. (editor) (1999). The science studies reader. New York: Routledge.
  • Bird, A. (1998). Philosophy of science. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
  • Bucciarelli, L.L. (1994). Designing engineers. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Carnap, R. (1995). An introduction to the philosophy of science. New York: Dover.
  • Chalmers, A.F. (1999). What is this thing called science? (3rd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Claxton, G. (1991). Educating the inquiring mind: The challenge for school science. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
  • Cline, B.L. (1987). Men who made a new physics: Physics and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Collins, H., & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem: What everybody should know about science (2nd edition). Cambridge: CUP.
  • Doll, W.E. (1993). A post-modern perspective on curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Driver, R. (1983). The pupil as scientist? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Driver, R., Leach, J., Millar, R., & Scott, P. (1996). Young people's images of science. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Feyerabend, P. (1988). Against method (2nd edition). London: Verso.
  • Foulds, K., Gott, R. & Feasey, R. (1992). Investigative work in science. Durham: University of Durham.
  • Franklin, U.M. (1999). The real world of technology. Toronto: Anansi.
  • Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy of the oppressed (New Revised 20th-Anniversay ed.). New York: Continuum.
  • Goldstein, M., & Goldstein, I.F. (1978). How we know:  An exploration of the scientific process. New York: Plenum Press.
  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (1995). Investigative work in the science curriculum. Buckingham: Open University Press.
  • Gott, R., & Duggan, S. (2003). Understanding and using scientific evidence: How to critically evaluate data. London: Sage.
  • Gower, B. (1997). Scientific method: An historical and philosophical introduction. London: Routledge.
  • Hess, D.J. (1997). Science studies: An advanced introduction. New York: New York University Press.
  • Holton, G. (1978). The scientific imagination: Case studies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Kuhn, T.S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd edition).  Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Kuhn, T.S. (1978). Essential tension. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
  • Lakatos, I., & Musgrave, A. (1970). Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Latour, B. (1987). Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1979/1986). Laboratory life: The social construction of scientific facts. London: Sage.
  • Lauden, L. (1984). Science and values. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
  • Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Layton, D. (1993). Technology’s challenge to science education. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
  • Layton, D, Jenkins, E. W., McGill, S., & Davey, A (1993). Inarticulate Science?: Perspectives on the public understanding of science. Driffield, Nafferton: Studies in Education.
  • Lemke, J.L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
  • Losee, J. (2001). A historical introduction to the philosophy of science (4th edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Lynch, M., & Woolgar, S. (editors) (1990). Representation in scientific practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Magee, B. (1987). The great philosophers: An introduction to Western philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mautner, T. (editor) (1997). Dictionary of philosophy (2nd edition). New York: Penguin.
  • McMurtry, J. (1999). The cancer stage of capitalism. London: Pluto.
  • McComas, W. (editor) (1998). The nature of science in science education: Rationales and strategies. London: Kluwer.
  • McCulloch, G., Jenkins, E., & Layton, D. (1985). Technological revolution?: The politics of school science and technology in England and Wales since 1945. London: Falmer Press.
  • Merton, R. (1942). The sociology of science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
  • Nadeau, R., & Désautels, J. (1984). Epistemology and the teaching of science. A discussion paper for the Science Council of Canada (D84/2). Ottawa: Ministry of Supply and Services.
  • Olson, S., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (editors) (2000). Inquiry and the National Science Education Standards: A guide for teaching and learning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  • Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Popper, K.R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Hutchinson.
  • Popper, K.R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
  • Roth, W.-M. (1995). Authentic school science: Knowing and learning in open-inquiry science laboratories. London: Kluwer.
  • Roth, W.-M., & Barton, A.C. (2004). Re-thinking scientific literacy. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
  • Roth, W.-M., & Desautels, J. (editors) (2002). Science education as/for sociopolitical action. New York: Peter Lang.
  • Shapin, S., & Schaffer, S. (1985). Leviathan and the air pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the experimental life. Princteon: Princeton University Press.
  • Traweek, S. (1988). Beamtimes and lifetimes: The world of high energy physicists. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Watson, J.D. (1980). The double helix: A personal account of the discovery of the structure of DNA (A Norton Critical Edition). New York: Mentor, New American Library.
  • Wellington, J. (editor.) (1989). Skills and processes in science education: A critical analysis. London: Routledge.
  • Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Whitfield, P. (1999). Landmarks in Western Science: From prehistory to the atomic age. New York: Routledge.
  • Ziman, J.M. (1980). Teaching and learning about science and society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ziman, J. (1984). An introduction to science studies: The philosophical and social aspects of science and technology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  • Ziman, J. (2000). Real science: What it is, and what it means. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
(Back to Top)